Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Dave Armstrong is a liberal on the issue of salvation.He rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the old ecclesiology associated with the Traditinal Latin Mass. Mark Shea is the same.They know their position is irrational but they want to remain politically correct with the Jewish Left.They do not want to be considered anti-Semitic so they adjust Church doctrine to serve their financial interests.They earn a living writing on the Catholic Church.

Dave Armstrong rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since for him there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation. For him the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to cases known in the present times, who have been saved/ going to be saved, without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

Since there are known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation, he and Mark Shea, assume LG 16 (saved in invincible ignorance), refer to objective cases in 2015-2016. So LG 16 and Vatican Council II is a break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. So there is NO tension with the Jewish Left.This is also Patheos' position on Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS.Expedient. Convenient. Selfish.

They will not comment or support me, when I say I interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma without known exceptions. I use Feeneyism, and not their Cushingism as a theology.

They do not want to discuss this. Since it would be frightening for them to affirm an anti-Semitic version of Vatican Council II, even if it is rational, traditional and non heretical.-Lionel Andrades

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation,it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member,butit is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office

CONCLUSION

it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member

WHY ?

Since 'one may obtain eternal salvation' also 'by desire and longing'.

SO WHAT?

And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?

Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

Someone knows of persons who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

False premise: There are people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and they are known to us in the present times.

False inference : These persons are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So it is not always required that a person be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.

LUMEN GENTIUM 14

I

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

FALSE PREMISE: 'among persons known to us'

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved (and they are among persons known to us)

FALSE INFERENCE : 'so all do not need to convert formally into the Church for salvation'.

These persons known to us, 'who know that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, and have refused to enter or to remain in it' , are known to us , they are among persons known to us, and so they are exceptions to all needing to convert fornally into the Church for salvation. So all do not need to formally enter the Church, but only those who 'know'.

_______________________________

II

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.- Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

CONCLUSIONit is not always required that he ( a non Catholic, a non baptised person ) be incorporated into the Church actually as a member

WHY ?

Since 'one may obtain eternal salvation' also 'by desire and longing'. Or by being in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of one's own. A person in invincible ignorance can be saved according to the Holy Office 1949 without the baptism of water. So all do not need to enter the Church for salvation but only those who 'know ' and who are not in invincible ignorance .This was their reasoning.

SO WHAT?

And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).We personally know non Catholics in invincible ignorance and who are not baptised in the Church and they will be saved. Or we know of cases now already in Heaven, who are in invincible ignorance, and do not have 'faith and baptism', is the reasoning here.

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?

Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

Someone knows of persons who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

Apply the same irrational reasoning to the other passage in Lumen Gentium 14.

There are'catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church 'and they are known to us in the present times, they can be known to us, they are visible and not invisible for us. These cases who are personally known, whose names are known to us, ' by that very intention' are ' joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own'.

Explicit cases?

If they are not explicit cases how can they be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? They would also have to be objective cases, personally known to be exceptions or relevant to the passages above(in orange) which are in agreement with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.So invisible cases were assumed to be visible, and this is the common wrong inference accepted today.

_________________________________

-Lionel Andrades

DECEMBER 30, 2015

The false reasoning from the Letter is all over Vatican Council II and Archbishop Lefebvre did not notice it -1

The pattern of error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 can be seen incorporated into Vatican Council II. It would seem as if Vatican Council II was called, only to make official, the error used to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This was the pattern: a hypothetical case was considered explict, real, seen in the fleshThen it was concluded it was an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation.

An irrational premise was made like there are known people in the present times who are saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Then it was inferred that these cases were exceptions to the traditional, strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.

Check out the pattern in Vatican Council II.

Here are some examples at random.

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office

CONCLUSION

it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member

WHY ?

Since 'one may obtain eternal salvation' also 'by desire and longing'.

SO WHAT?

And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?

Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

Someone knows of persons who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

False premise: There are people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and they are known to us in the present times.

False inference : These persons are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So it is not always required that a person be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.

Traditionalists and liberals use this reasoning. No one asks, "Hey wait! Where are these people, who are these people saved without the baptism of water? I cannot see any one . I do not know any one as such. How can you reason like this?"

Since no one asked, no one objected, not even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davis and the other traditionalists, this reasoning was used in Vatican Council II in so many places. Hypothetical cases were mentioned as if they were explicit exceptions to EENS:

Here are some examples

NOSTRA AETATE 2

I

She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.-Nostra Aetate, Vatican Coun cil II.

FALSE PREMISE: 'among persons known to us'

She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings (in other religions, necessary for salvation among persons known to us)

FALSE INFERENCE : 'so all do not need to convert formally into the Church for salvation'.

These persons known to us, reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men, they are saved, so all do not need to convert fornally into the Church for salvation.

_______________________________

II

She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.-Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II.

CONCLUSIONit is not always required that he ( a non Catholic, a non baptised person ) be incorporated into the Church actually as a member

WHY ?

Since 'one may obtain eternal salvation' also 'by desire and longing'. Or by following 'those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings', which ' reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men ' , which saves.

SO WHAT?

And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?

Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

Someone knows of persons who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

_________________________________

Unitatis Redintigratio 3

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. - Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II

FALSE PREMISE: 'among persons known to us'For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized (in other religions, who are saved and are among persons known to us) FALSE INFERENCE : 'so all do not need to convert formally into the Church for salvation'.These persons known to us, are in communion with the Catholic Church , they are saved, so all do not need to convert fornally into the Church for salvation._______________________________

IIFor men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. - Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II

CONCLUSIONit is not always required that he( a non Catholic, ) be incorporated into the Church actually as a member

WHY ?

Since 'one may obtain eternal salvation' also 'by desire and longing'. Or by ' believing in Christ' and being 'truly baptized' .

SO WHAT?

And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?

Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

Someone knows of persons who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

_________________________________

Unitatis Redintigratio 3 (continued)

But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body - Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. - Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council IIFALSE PREMISE: 'among persons known to us'For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized (in other religions, who are saved and are among persons known to us) FALSE INFERENCE : 'so all do not need to convert formally into the Church for salvation'.These persons known to us, are in communion with the Catholic Church , they are saved, so all do not need to convert fornally into the Church for salvation._______________________________II

But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body - Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II

CONCLUSIONit is not always required that he ( a non Catholic) be incorporated into the Church actually as a formal member

WHY ?

Since ' members of Christ's body ' also include those 'who have been justified by faith in Baptism'.

SO WHAT?

And these cases are known, they are explicit in the present times and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

HOW CAN THEY BE EXPLICIT FOR US?

Since someone has seen these cases in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

Someone knows of persons who will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

_________________________________

Apply the same irrational reasoning to these two passages also from Unitatis Redintigratio 3.

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.- Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.- Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Vatican Council II_______________________________________

'the separated Churches and Communities as such', 'have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation', why had they to mention this in Vatican Council II(UR 3) ? Since these are hypothetical cases. They are the stuff of speculation?

Why?

Since this was the reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Hypothetical cases ( the baptism of desire etc) were assumed to be known and visible (premise) and then it was assumed that they were exceptions and relevant (inference) to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

It is my firm belief that the day will come when the Church will declare Blessed, Marcel Lefebvre and it will be fully realised that the Holy Spirit was acting through him to preserve the Faith from the those, the likes of which we have not seen for many decades, who know raise their heads with such heterodoxy.- Vox Cantoris 1

Lionel:

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which states :

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that
he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary
that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

The dogma says everyone needs to be incorporated into the Catholic Church actually as a member for eternal salvation.Where are the exceptions in real life ? Who are they, what are their names?

Vox Cantoris has also stated in an earlier post that every one needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions in the present times (2015-2016). There cannot be any known exception for us human being.

Yet the Letter assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For the Holy Office these cases were relevant to the dogma.So they mentioned them in the Letter. It was approved by Pope Pius XII. Since the Letter assumes that these cases ( baptism of desire etc ) are explicit for them to be an exception to the dogma,this becomes an objective error.

It is a fact of life that we cannot know or see, any one personally, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So there cannot be an exception to the norm on salvation.There cannot be a contradiction to the church's teaching on objective reality.

The Letter made a mistake.Archbishop Lefebvre did not notice it.

___________________________

Vox Cantoris says :

St. Thomas Becket knew. In the Office of Readings, or Matins, for this Christmastide Feast, we read in his Letter,

"As successors of the apostles, we hold the highest rank in our churches; we have accepted the responsibility of acting as Christ’s representatives on earth; we receive the honour belonging to that office, and enjoy the temporal benefits of our spiritual labours. It must therefore be our endeavour to destroy the reign of sin and death, and by nurturing faith and uprightness of life, to build up the Church of Christ into a holy temple in the Lord.( Lionel : Yes and without the Cushingite error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949)

There are a great many bishops in the Church, but would to God we were the zealous teachers and pastors that we promised to be at our consecration, and still make profession of being."( Lionel: St.Thomas Becket did not teach that there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or that the baptism of desire refers to explicit cases of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. This was not a doctrine at that time as it is now for the SSPX ) - Vox Cantoris

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 taught heresy and a factual error and Archbishop Lefebvre accepted it as did the magisterium of his time.